Not By Faith Alone

[SolaScriptura]

Exactly! You just made my point. Try to follow here. You just admitted that John cannot be saying that “God too hath God for his debtor.”

Yes, exactly.

What you rightly state is that this means “Man has God as His debtor.” Correct! That is precisely my point. A debtor is someone who owes payment to a “CREDITOR.”

Exactly, and that is why you are guilty of salvation by works. I’m arguing your position not what I think Chrysostom means. I was just flusing you position out for all to see and you glad accept it as if you have made some great point. You are saying Romans 4:4 is teaching that “Man has God as His debtor”, which is complete opposite of what the verse means. I’ve quoted a number of Catholics who say the exact same thing. Can you quote one who agrees with your interpretation of Romans 4:4?

Your apparent problem is a confusion of terms. Thus, if man has God as his debtor, John is saying that God “owes man payment.” Thanks. You argued well for my position.

I’m not confusing terms, I know very well what you are saying and what the terms mean. I was just making it clear that it was “Man has God as His debtor”, because tried to argue at one point that God was rewarding his own works. Chrsystom and Paul are clear that the works they are speaking of are the works of man, not God.

Now again, you seem to automatically returned to your entrenched Protestant position of “God can’t owe uw anything.”

No, that is not my position. However we are having a much narrower discussion based on Romans 4:4. In the context of this text God is not a debtor to man. The context of Romans 4 is clear that this justification is based on grace and not on debt. If it is a debt than man can boast.

Which, of course, I agree with you on in the strict sense of the term. Yet, we have already explained the difference in our use of terminology where you use merit as “earn” and we use it as “reward” (which is the way the Scripture uses it).

Here is your problem. You can force your theology on any verse to explain it. There are some verse where you can make an argument for rewards based good works we do, but this is definitely not one of them. You are trying to force this presupposition in a place where it does not fit.

Thus, since John (whom you deemed to be a reliable Church Father in citing him in the first place) is clearly arguing that God becomes a debtor to man (as you just admitted), it is now incumbent on us to see how he could possibly be saying such a thing in light of Paul’s teaching in Romans. However, we cannot do this until you admit that this is indeed what John is saying.

I don’t agree that that is why Chrysostom is saying. I was hoping that once you saw you are clearly affirm justification by works that you would flee from it, but on contrary you are boldly affirming it and wish to take Chrysostom with you. I’m utterly amazed.

So, in other words, you are going to continue to talk past me.

No we are talking to each other. You are affirming that Romans 4:4 and its context is teaching that God becomes our debtor. I’m arguing that is eisegesis and I doubt if you can find any respectable Catholic or Protestant commentary on Romans 4:4 that would agree with you. So I invite all Catholics to dig up their apologetic books and commentaries and quote the ones that interpret Romans 4:4 to be teaching God becomes our debtor.

 

[Redbandito]

Romans 4:4:

For to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

But again, what “work” is Paul discussing? Clearly Paul is talking about “circumcision” and the “ceremonial law.” Paul makes a more clear statement on this in Galatians. He states, “Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole **law” **(Gal 5:3). In other words, the person who tries to be justified by the ceremonial law (by being circumcised), must keep the WHOLE of the law (moral law included). And as James tells us, “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it” (Jam 2:10). Thus, the Jew who trusts in his own work, and tries to justify himself through MAKING God a debtor must keep the whole law. Why? Again, because the ceremonial law does not justify. Rather, it is the very evidence Paul uses to teach that we cannot obligate God by keeping any of the law, because it is the symbol of the Jewish failure to do so.

 

[SolaScriptura]

And I, for one, know for a fact that Scott Hahn does not agree entirely with Sungenis’ exegesis in this one area. How? I know Scott Hahn. I have had dinner with he and his family on multiple occassions. I am good friends with a guy that lived with and studied under Dr. Hahn personally. We have been discussing this thread as it has gone along.

Scott Hahn actually makes the point in his Ignatius Bible Study that there were two ways to read this passage. One is in the camp of St. Jerome (maybe the greatest Biblical Scholar of his time, who agrees with my view) and the other is with St. Augustine (one of the greatest theologians ever who agrees that Paul talks about all works when referring to law). Dr. Hahn actually believes both as I explained it above in the previous post.

Why don’t you quote Dr Hahn exegesis of Romans 4:4? I want to see what he says, because it doesn’t matter if one believes works of the law are restricted to just ceremonial or more, the point is true that God is not a debtor per Romans 4:4. It is and either/or choice. Grace or debt. Please provides some quotes and not your gloss.

BTW, name dropping a bunch of Catholics that supposedly agree with your position does not impress me. Further, it is entirely different to have Biblical SCHOLARS agree with your position than apologists. I have a great deal of respect for all the names on that list, but there is no question in my mind who the pre-eminent in Biblical scholarship is amongst them. I stand with that man’s interpretation, period.

Please don’t tell me that you think Scott Hahn is biblical scholar? If you want to consult a Roman Catholic scholar then you should consult Raymond Brown or Joseph Fitzymyer. It is also funny that you talk about not quoting apologist and the argument you are defending is one of the biggest and weakest apologist out there, Matt1618. This guy is a joke. He even contradicts himself. In the one article you quote he argues for God being the debtor, but in another one he condemns that interpretation.

Finally, the imprimatur is great. Yet, this does not mean that every passage is exegeted perfectly. Exegeting correctly or incorrectly is not synonomous with teaching doctrinal error or not. This is the perfect example. Because I agree with Catholic doctrine and Sungenis’ conclusion that man cannot obligate God, in a strict sense, to pay him for work done. The only payment this could merit, in a strict sense, would be Eternal Punishment. Yet, I don’t agree with the way Sungenis gets there in exegeting THIS passage.

Yes, I know that about the imprimatur and the Nihil Obstat, but my point in quoting all your apologist and listing these things is to show this is not a Protestant vs a Catholic argument. It is everybody against Redbandito, until you quote someone who agrees with you consistently. So far you have quote Matt1618 gloss of Chrysostom, but in another paper he contradicts it. So he has disqualified himself. You have mentioned Scott Hahn, but so far you have not given any evidence. Please do so.

 

[Redbandito]

Yes, exactly.

Exactly, and that is why you are guilty of salvation by works. I’m arguing your position not what I think Chrysostom means. I was just flusing you position out for all to see and you glad accept it as if you have made some great point. You are saying Romans 4:4 is teaching that “Man has God as His debtor”, which is complete opposite of what the verse means. I’ve quoted a number of Catholics who say the exact same thing. Can you quote one who agrees with your interpretation of Romans 4:4?.

Okay. I’m done with this discussion. That’s not what I am saying. I understand it is confusing, as a Protestant, trying to conceptualize things while using Catholic terminology. However, you glossed right over the whole of the thread in accusing me of such a thing. If you’re going to continue with misrepresenting my position, it is not worth it. My question to you is, “Why are you here?” You are clearly here to “Save a Catholic’s soul,” because you’re not here to learn. I have no interest in that type of a discussion. I know what the Church teaches.

And I would just like to point out the hypocrisy of this statement: “I’m arguing your position not what I think Chrysostom means.” That is just a flat out untruth. I’m not going to call it a lie, because I don’t know your intent. But it is clearly not true. In fact, in this very post, you continue to try and “take Chrysostom with you.” The whole point of you using Chrysostom in the first place was to show that the ECF’s did not agree with the Catholic position on this teaching. Thus, don’t tell me you are not arguing this is not Chrysostom’s position. That is exactly what you are doing. And you are doing that, because you want to argue that Chrysostom’s position is Paul’s position. Which, btw, I agree with. I just don’t agree that you are right about Chrysostom’s position.

I’m not confusing terms, I know very well what you are saying and what the terms mean. I was just making it clear that it was “Man has God as His debtor”, because tried to argue at one point that God was rewarding his own works. Chrsystom and Paul are clear that the works they are speaking of are the works of man, not God.

Amen! The works of man, the law apart from grace, in this particular context. The fact that God rewards His own works is also true, but what does that have to do with this “narrow” discussion? That has to do with Rom 2:5-13 and Eph 2:10, not Rom 4:4. This point was brought up in response to accusations you made about “debt” essentially equalling “strict payment for.”

No, that is not my position. However we are having a much narrower discussion based on Romans 4:4. In the context of this text God is not a debtor to man. The context of Romans 4 is clear that this justification is based on grace and not on debt. If it is a debt than man can boast.

This is precisely why I brought up the idea of “God rewarding his own work” earlier. If it is “debt” in the sense of a “reward,” man cannot and WILL NOT boast. See, you continue to make this false dichotomy based on your misunderstanding of Paul in Romans. Yet, if you didn’t misunderstand Paul, you would have to admit that there is at least a metaphysical possibility that there could be a third category here. Based on the idea of Catholic infusion, God rewards man based on God’s own work in man. Man’s cooperation with this work pleases God. Yet, man’s ability to do good in God’s eyes, comes from God. Why is that so difficult to understand? Do you deny actual grace?

Here is your problem. You can force your theology on any verse to explain it. There are some verse where you can make an argument for rewards based good works we do, but this is definitely not one of them. You are trying to force this presupposition in a place where it does not fit.

Who said I was trying to argue “rewards based good works” by this text? You are really confused here. I think you are trying to force everything into the context of Rom 4, whereas I, as John did, am taking a more canonical approach to the topic. What’s that phrase you Protestants like to throw out: “Interpreting Scripture in the light of Scripture.”

 

[Redbandito]

I don’t agree that that is why Chrysostom is saying. I was hoping that once you saw you are clearly affirm justification by works that you would flee from it, but on contrary you are boldly affirming it and wish to take Chrysostom with you. I’m utterly amazed.

So, you used Chrysostom to support your position on Paul. But when I responded with quotes of Chrysostom that do not support your position on Paul, you were hoping that I would interpret those quotes through your Pauline theology. Which is it? This is simply circular logic. Furthermore, I will not run from “justification by works” because Catholics accept such a notion. We don’t accept INITIAL JUSTIFICATION by works. I thought you understood that. It seems everytime we get somewhere, you start falling back on old preconceived notions again.

No we are talking to each other. You are affirming that Romans 4:4 and its context is teaching that God becomes our debtor. I’m arguing that is eisegesis and I doubt if you can find any respectable Catholic or Protestant commentary on Romans 4:4 that would agree with you. So I invite all Catholics to dig up their apologetic books and commentaries and quote the ones that interpret Romans 4:4 to be teaching God becomes our debtor.

Actually, I was arguing that John Chrysostom stated that. You continue to dodge that text, because he clearly states that. If you admit the obvious, then we can rectify his statements to the text of Rom 4. Until then, it’s not worth the time.

What you seem to miss is that Chyrsostom is not merely “exegeting” Romans 4, but is rather writing a sermon on it. Thus, he is applying principles we know from other places in Scripture to clarify what Paul means by saying this. In other words, he is saying that while Paul says “we must initially choose between works or grace” he is not saying “never works.”

 

[Redbandito]

Why don’t you quote Dr Hahn exegesis of Romans 4:4? I want to see what he says, because it doesn’t matter if one believes works of the law are restricted to just ceremonial or more, the point is true that God is not a debtor per Romans 4:4. It is and either/or choice. Grace or debt. Please provides some quotes and not your gloss…

See, you don’t want to see what he says. You have already made up your mind. Immediately proceeding your demand for a quote of his, you state, “because it doesn’t matter if one believes works of the law are restricted to just ceremonial or more, the point is true that God is not a debtor per Romans 4:4.” In other words, despite the fact that you use the term “debtor” differently than me. Despite the fact that you have been called out on misusing Chyrsostom. Despite the fact that a scholar of Hahn’s quality would disagree with you, you have made up your mind. What does the Scripture say about such things? “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces” (Mt 7:6).

And as far as debt in the strict sense of “earn” that you apply to it, I agree. That is why I stated previously that you are talking past me.

Please don’t tell me that you think Scott Hahn is biblical scholar? If you want to consult a Roman Catholic scholar then you should consult Raymond Brown or Joseph Fitzymyer. It is also funny that you talk about not quoting apologist and the argument you are defending is one of the biggest and weakest apologist out there, Matt1618. This guy is a joke. He even contradicts himself. In the one article you quote he argues for God being the debtor, but in another one he condemns that interpretation.

Why? Is that funny to you? Do you mock the fact that I believe Hahn is a Biblical scholar? Do you have reason to doubt such a claim? What constitutes a Biblical scholar in your mind?

And as much as I respect Raymond Brown, you will find he is greeted with mixed reception in Catholic circles. Fr. Brown brought doubt to some of the historical accuracies of the Scriptures. He approached Biblical exegesis with a more modernist, skeptical hermeneutic. That is not exactly the guy I want speaking for me as a Christian, much less a Catholic.

Yes, I know that about the imprimatur and the Nihil Obstat, but my point in quoting all your apologist and listing these things is to show this is not a Protestant vs a Catholic argument. It is everybody against Redbandito, until you quote someone who agrees with you consistently. So far you have quote Matt1618 gloss of Chrysostom, but in another paper he contradicts it. So he has disqualified himself. You have mentioned Scott Hahn, but so far you have not given any evidence. Please do so.

Why? If I do so, you will just find a way to argue with me over him, just as you did with John Chrysostom. Honestly, what is the point of this type of a discussion? You are intent on proving me wrong, no matter the cost. I have no intention of being converted. I have heard these arguments dozens of times. I remain unconvinced. This type of discussion is fruitless. If I do provide a quote from Dr. Hahn, will that then convince you? Of course not! You’ll just write him off as wrong too. So, why waste the research time?

 

[Redbandito]

Oh, and btw SS. As much as you have been harping about all Catholics against Redbandito, I thought it would be interesting to introduce the Reformers vs. SS debate. I found this quite interesting.

"The answer to this last sentence is, “Jacob the reformers do say that Abram was justified before Gen. 15:6!” … Luther, Calvin, Owen, Turretin, Edwards, and many others argued that Abraham was justified before Gen. 15:6!

Calvin made much of the fact that Abram was justified before Gen. 15:6 against Rome to show that works are excluded even after one has begun the Christian life (see Institutes 3.11.14 and 3.14.11)!"

You made so much out of the unity of Traditional Confession attesting Protestants on justification, yet you disagree with the Reformers on when Abraham was justified. Which btw, does major damage to your position on progressive justification. God bless!

Oh, this is just in case you wanted to check out this Protestant site: ntrmin.org/rescuing_romans_from_jacob_micha.htm

 

[Redbandito]

Oh, and btw SS. As much as you have been harping about all Catholics against Redbandito, I thought it would be interesting to introduce the Reformers vs. SS debate. I found this quite interesting.

"The answer to this last sentence is, “Jacob the reformers do say that Abram was justified before Gen. 15:6!” … Luther, Calvin, Owen, Turretin, Edwards, and many others argued that Abraham was justified before Gen. 15:6!

Calvin made much of the fact that Abram was justified before Gen. 15:6 against Rome to show that works are excluded even after one has begun the Christian life (see Institutes 3.11.14 and 3.14.11)!"

You made so much out of the unity of Traditional Confession attesting Protestants on justification, yet you disagree with the Reformers on when Abraham was justified. Which btw, does major damage to your position on progressive justification. God bless!

Oh, this is just in case you wanted to check out this Protestant site: ntrmin.org/rescuing_romans_from_jacob_micha.htm

In fact, I find that there is still debate even amongst modern Evangelicals on when Abraham was justified initially. In response to Martin Foord, Pacheco states, "1) Does the fact that the Reformed camp cannot agree on the occasion of Abraham’s justification mean that the whole “one-time justification” theory is out the window? I mean, you would think that if Abraham’s justification was just one-time, then they should be able to speak with one voice and tell us just exactly when that was. Up until now, I thought it was Genesis 15:6. Mr. Foord has enlightened us all that it was not. Fascinating.

1. Now that Mr. Foord has indicated initial justification occurred in Genesis 12, then we Catholics are very happy to accept his explanation of what was going on in Genesis 15:6. As he very ably explains:
   “Quite simply Gen. 15:6 is not a statement about Abram’s initial justification. It is a statement about what kept Abram in a justified state (or righteousness).”
   This is a very Catholic view of the verse. We are most indebted to Mr. Foord for it."

In other words, Protestants have no more unity in agreement with each other on justification than they do with Catholics. God bless the internet!

catholic-legate.com/dialogues/rescuingromans.html

 

[apophasis]

Romans 4 gives you two options. Either righteousness is credited because of your works and therefore it is a debt or it is credited because of grace. Also remember in this context it is speaking of the ungodly. So your claim that this verse is teaching the ungodly has made God a debtor because of his work doesn’t make any sense.

:clapping: Yet they continue to argue their nonsensical “merit” system. Paul clearly teaches that it is the “ungodly” whom God reckons righteousness through faith (in Christ) alone. A divine principle Paul teaches that has not changed since God revealed that He reckoned righteousness to Abraham based solely on his personal faith in Him (Gen. 15:6).Rom 4:13 "What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it (his faith), was credited to him as righteousness."There is no “infused” righteousness being taught here, nor “initial” righteousness. But that which is declared based on personal faith in Him alone.

This is sophistry and esigesis. We are discussing Romans 4:4 to claim this verse is teaching God becoming our debtor is so far off base I can’t believe you have the temerity to keep arguing for the position. And if 4:4 couldn’t be any clearer verse 5 says it is the ungodly, so how in the world you get Catholic theology of “merit” out of this is unbelievable.

I cannot agree more heartily. It is truly "unbelievable."Rom. 11:6 “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.”

 

[SolaScriptura]

So, you used Chrysostom to support your position on Paul. But when I responded with quotes of Chrysostom that do not support your position on Paul, you were hoping that I would interpret those quotes through your Pauline theology. Which is it? This is simply circular logic.

No, I’m hoping that you would interpret Chrysostom through biblical Pauline theology, not mines. More on this in another post later. There is a lot more context to the statement that Chrysostom makes that I think will help bring some clarity to this issue.

Furthermore, I will not run from “justification by works” because Catholics accept such a notion. We don’t accept INITIAL JUSTIFICATION by works. I thought you understood that. It seems everytime we get somewhere, you start falling back on old preconceived notions again.

You are missing the point. I’m speaking in reference to Romans 4:4. In that context “justification by works” in any sense is condemned. Didn’t you notice all the Catholics I quoted in previous post were discussing the specific context of Romans 4:4?

Actually, I was arguing that John Chrysostom stated that. You continue to dodge that text, because he clearly states that. If you admit the obvious, then we can rectify his statements to the text of Rom 4. Until then, it’s not worth the time.

What you seem to miss is that Chyrsostom is not merely “exegeting” Romans 4, but is rather writing a sermon on it. Thus, he is applying principles we know from other places in Scripture to clarify what Paul means by saying this. In other words, he is saying that while Paul says “we must initially choose between works or grace” he is not saying “never works.”

Chrysostom is doing both. He is writing a sermon based on his exegesis of Romans 4. But like I said there is more context to what he is saying than your isolated quote communicates. I will post on that in another post.

 

[SolaScriptura]

See, you don’t want to see what he says. You have already made up your mind. Immediately proceeding your demand for a quote of his, you state, “because it doesn’t matter if one believes works of the law are restricted to just ceremonial or more, the point is true that God is not a debtor per Romans 4:4.” In other words, despite the fact that you use the term “debtor” differently than me. Despite the fact that you have been called out on misusing Chyrsostom. Despite the fact that a scholar of Hahn’s quality would disagree with you, you have made up your mind. What does the Scripture say about such things? “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces” (Mt 7:6).

Oh brother, this is precious. First of all, will you provided the quotes from Dr Hahn? I provide quotes when I bring in an external witness so far all we have from you are your words. Second, I’m not denying Scott Hahn may believe “works of the law” equate to ceremonial law. There are Protestants( mostly New Perspective advocates) who hold to that position. My point is that I don’t believe any of them would interpret Romans 4:4 as arguing that works plays in role. So I’m mainly interested in how Dr Hahn exegetes Romans 4:4

And as far as debt in the strict sense of “earn” that you apply to it, I agree. That is why I stated previously that you are talking past me.

So are you agreeing that in the context of Romans 4:4( you may call this initial justification if you like ) it is either of debt or grace. If by works then it is a debt, if by faith then it is of grace.

Why? Is that funny to you? Do you mock the fact that I believe Hahn is a Biblical scholar?

Yes, I do find that funny. If Scott Hahn is anything he is an apologist, which you say you are not relying on.

Do you have reason to doubt such a claim? What constitutes a Biblical scholar in your mind?

Yes I doubt it, because Biblical scholars are not created because one teaches at a university and writes a few books. In the broad sense I guess you could call him a scholar, but being that you distinguish him from the others you ruled that out. One is a biblical scholar based on their expertise and research in an specific area. Ususally this is acquired by extensive research with all the scholarly literature on the issue. The person normally contributes to scholarly journals( not any magazines or publications) and he is recognized by those who are already scholars in the field as a scholar. In what area of Bible do you deem Scott Hahn to be a scholar?

And as much as I respect Raymond Brown, you will find he is greeted with mixed reception in Catholic circles. Fr. Brown brought doubt to some of the historical accuracies of the Scriptures. He approached Biblical exegesis with a more modernist, skeptical hermeneutic. That is not exactly the guy I want speaking for me as a Christian, much less a Catholic.

You don’t want him speaking for you as a Catholic, but two Popes felt differently. The late Fr Raymond Brown who was twice appointed a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, by Pope Paul VI in 1972 and by Pope John Paul II in 1996). So should we put more weight on who you think should be speaking for Catholicism or the Popes? And if all of what you say above is true about Fr Brown not even being a voice for Christians, let alone Catholicism what does that say about the Popes who appointed him? However, it matters not what reactions he gets from Catholics, he is world class scholar and Scott Hahn is not even in his league in that regard. Now it doesn’t mean he is more right than Hahn, but it does mean he is in another class in reference to New Testatment scholarship.

Why? If I do so, you will just find a way to argue with me over him, just as you did with John Chrysostom. Honestly, what is the point of this type of a discussion? You are intent on proving me wrong, no matter the cost. I have no intention of being converted. I have heard these arguments dozens of times. I remain unconvinced. This type of discussion is fruitless. If I do provide a quote from Dr. Hahn, will that then convince you? Of course not! You’ll just write him off as wrong too. So, why waste the research time?

I might not be able to respond until later tonight or tomorrow in reference to Chrysostom, but stay tuned. However, I do want to see what Scott Hahn has to say about Romans 4:4. And yes, it will convince me of his position providing there is enough context to rule out misinterpretation. That is what I think is going on with Chrysostom.

 

[Love4Nature]

Yes

It’s that 1 word, as if anything we can do would justify us in Christ eye when he did everything for us.

If you fail to have true faith, how can you see what one truly needs, when Christ is the spirit within you how do you err?
answer; only by humanly ways.

Martin Luther with his new doctrine of “Faith Alone” wins the heart of Germany, because Germany at that point in time did not see eye to eye with Roman.

Why do scholars call Abraham the Father of Faith?

He had very strong Faith in God. When his son ask him; where is the lamp that will be sacrificed? Abraham answered his son; the Lord will provide us with one, knowing fully that he has to offer his son as an offering to his God.

The action that Abraham took by offering his son, shows his deep faith in God, someone that he has not seen in person.

Therefore, St James has all the right to say in James 2:26.

Jesus had Faith in the Father and also worked miracles. It was the miracles that he did that was not accepted by the High Priest of the Temple in Jerusalem.

So our risen Lord, like Abraham did want was expected out of them from the Father. So will Faith alone get you there? No, salvation is a journey.

I can go to teach everyday and read my bible everyday, but if I don’t follow and live a life as per what the Holy Scripture says, I am nothing, a shifting grain of sand which goes along with the wind.

matt

 

[Redbandito]

No, I’m hoping that you would interpret Chrysostom through biblical Pauline theology, not mines. More on this in another post later. There is a lot more context to the statement that Chrysostom makes that I think will help bring some clarity to this issue…

Thank you for confirming this. Weren’t you accusing me of eisogesis earlier? This is the perfect example of eisogesis. You are “interpreting Chrysostom through biblical Pauline theology.” Or in other words, your Pauline theology. Thus, you are reading your flawed theology into the text cited. That, my friend is eisogesis. Thank you for admitting it.

You are missing the point. I’m speaking in reference to Romans 4:4. In that context “justification by works” in any sense is condemned. Didn’t you notice all the Catholics I quoted in previous post were discussing the specific context of Romans 4:4?.

What Catholics did you “quote?” I saw you list a bunch of scholars, but I didn’t see any quotes. One of which I know better about.

Chrysostom is doing both. He is writing a sermon based on his exegesis of Romans 4. But like I said there is more context to what he is saying than your isolated quote communicates. I will post on that in another post.

Actually, you are doing the exact thing you claim I’m doing. Chrysostom is preaching on Romans 4 based on his complete understanding of justification, which includes works(a point which I made several posts ago). That is the point that he made, and the one I have continued to show you. Yet, you deny the obvious. If you will not grant that most obvious quotation as support for my position, there is no point to this discussion. If you want to claim Chrysostom is merely inconsistent, as you previously did, fine. However, you immediately changed your tune when I questioned why you cited an unreliable source in the first place. So, what’s it going to be SS? Giving up Chrysostom does not win or lose the debate for anyone. It just allows us to move forward. If not, I have nothing more to say.

 

[Randy_Carson]

As a matter of fact I have Robert Sungensis’s, “Not By Faith Aone”

Sola-

I also have that book, and I’m working my way through it. Sungenis wrote a shorter version of it called How can I get to Heaven? which may be out of print, but I found a used copy on Amazon which I’m also reading.

Now, if you have read Not By Faith Alone, then you should have a pretty good understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches - perhaps better than most Catholics. Which is okay, since we don’t have to be able to explain it in order to be saved.

So, I’m wondering why you keep asking these questions about *sola fide. *Very few if any of us will be able to give you a better explanation of salvation than Sungenis did in the 700 pages of his book…so what exactly are you looking for from us?

You throw out a verse, I throw out another verse. You offer an exigesis. I counter. You study Sproul or White or whoever and present the arguments you have learned from them. I will just refer to the Catechism, to Sungenis, and to Jimmy Akin among others.

Ad infinitum.

But if I remember my opening post in this thread, there is no verse in scripture that says we are saved by faith alone while there is one that says we are NOT saved by faith alone.

It is amazing to watch the gyrations y’all go through to try to explain away the book of James.

Can you imagine what would have happened if any Pope had tried to take a book out of the Bible or add the word alone to Romans 3? We Catholics would never hear the end of it from you guys. Or what if a Pope called a book of the Bible an “epistle of straw” or said he wanted to “throw Jimmy in the fire”. You would NEVER let that die.

Why you put up with such behavior from the father of the Reformation and his foolish solas is truly beyond me.

 

[Redbandito]

Oh brother, this is precious. First of all, will you provided the quotes from Dr Hahn? I provide quotes when I bring in an external witness so far all we have from you are your words. Second, I’m not denying Scott Hahn may believe “works of the law” equate to ceremonial law. There are Protestants( mostly New Perspective advocates) who hold to that position. My point is that I don’t believe any of them would interpret Romans 4:4 as arguing that works plays in role. So I’m mainly interested in how Dr Hahn exegetes Romans 4:4.

Man, you are so lost in this debate. I understand that there are a lot of different things being brought up, but try to follow the discussion. I am not, and have NEVER argued that Romans 4:4 teaches works play a role. Where did you get that? You are misusing my point on Chrysostom’s preaching to make this assertion. As I explained, Chrysostom is preaching on Romans 4 based on his complete understanding of justification. That is why after stating, “By no means: for it is to the believer that it is reckoned,” Chrysostom goes on to say, "But it would not have been reckoned, unless there were something that he contributed himself." I am not arguing, nor am I claiming that Chrysostom is, that he is stating that Romans 4:4 is arguing we must work. I am saying that Chyrsostom is understanding Romans 4:4-5 through his Catholic lens on justification. It’s really quite obvious by his argument.

And I asked you a specific question about citing my guys. We are moving in the next 3 weeks. ALL my books are packed. If I am going to do the research it takes to show you, I want to know it will be time well spent. What assurance do I have that you won’t just argue about that? SS, I have to be honest. This thread has worn me out. My patience is low on this. I don’t enjoy being misunderstood, and even less being misrepresented. I don’t like having contentious debates with other Christians. I think it is un-Christian. Yet, I feel it is my responsibility to defend the Catholic faith. However, I believe I have done that. I am not really wanting to run around in circles with you here. If you are interested in changing the tone of the debate, great. If not, I’m done.

So are you agreeing that in the context of Romans 4:4( you may call this initial justification if you like ) it is either of debt or grace. If by works then it is a debt, if by faith then it is of grace.

Let me try to break through the fog one more time here. Paul is making a distinction here between “works of law” and “works of faith.” We know Paul is arguing this by chapters 2-8 of Romans, not merely by reading your prooftext in Rom 4:4-5. Paul is stating that “works of law” do not make us righteous. Yet, he argues in chapter 2 that we are judged and ultimately justified by what we do! How can this be if he is arguing we are not justified by any works? No, Paul argues that works of the law (prior to initial justification), do not make us righteous before God. He is not arguing that works after our initial justification are opposed to grace. That is where you argument breaks down.

And to tell you the truth, I don’t care how different Catholics exegete this passage, because either way, the conclusion is the same. Thus, the Catholic has a tad bit of freedom in their exegesis here. It is the Protestant, ironically enough, that MUST have this passage mean exactly what you argue in order for their doctrine on justification to stand. Paul tells us that the “Law” does not justify us, but faith brings us into right standing with God. He argues elsewhere that our works, by the grace of God, keep us there.

Yes, I do find that funny. If Scott Hahn is anything he is an apologist, which you say you are not relying on…

That’s funny, the Reformed Presbyterians weren’t saying that prior to his conversion. Whatever. I think it says a lot about you that you don’t acknowledge a preimenent Catholic theologian in America as a scholar. I would think that anyone who has written a foreward for a book written by our current Pope would be a tad bit more than an apologist. But, whatever.

 

[Redbandito]

Yes I doubt it, because Biblical scholars are not created because one teaches at a university and writes a few books. In the broad sense I guess you could call him a scholar, but being that you distinguish him from the others you ruled that out. One is a biblical scholar based on their expertise and research in an specific area. Ususally this is acquired by extensive research with all the scholarly literature on the issue. The person normally contributes to scholarly journals( not any magazines or publications) and he is recognized by those who are already scholars in the field as a scholar. In what area of Bible do you deem Scott Hahn to be a scholar?.

Who said they were? I never said every theology professor that wrote a book is a scholar, although one could make this argument in a general sense (but certainly not for the term of Biblical scholar). And as far as his expertise, covenant my dear friend. Covenant theology.

You don’t want him speaking for you as a Catholic, but two Popes felt differently. The late Fr Raymond Brown who was twice appointed a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, by Pope Paul VI in 1972 and by Pope John Paul II in 1996). So should we put more weight on who you think should be speaking for Catholicism or the Popes? And if all of what you say above is true about Fr Brown not even being a voice for Christians, let alone Catholicism what does that say about the Popes who appointed him? However, it matters not what reactions he gets from Catholics, he is world class scholar and Scott Hahn is not even in his league in that regard. Now it doesn’t mean he is more right than Hahn, but it does mean he is in another class in reference to New Testatment scholarship…

What? See, this is why I want to end this discussion. You are more interested in winning a debate than having an honest dialogue. I never said Fr. Brown is “not a voice for Christians.” That is a gross misrepresentation of my previous post, and you know it. That is the difference between an apologist and a Christian seeking truth. I said there is some dissent amongst Catholics about what Fr. Brown’s exegetical style. Nor did I say I don’t respect Fr. Brown. In fact, I said the exact opposite. He contributed a lot to the Church. But, true to form, you have taken me out of context.

I might not be able to respond until later tonight or tomorrow in reference to Chrysostom, but stay tuned. However, I do want to see what Scott Hahn has to say about Romans 4:4. And yes, it will convince me of his position providing there is enough context to rule out misinterpretation. That is what I think is going on with Chrysostom.

Okay. Fair enough. I will provide a link. But remember, it is you who have been misinterpreting ME. I never said Hahn argued that Romans 4:4 teaches we are justified by works, as I addressed above. Thus, if you can misinterpret me, it does not surprise me that you would misinterpret Chrysostom, or even moreso Paul.

 

[Randy_Carson]

:clapping: Yet they continue to argue their nonsensical “merit” system.

Paul tells us: “For [God] will reward every man according to his works: to those who by perseverance in working good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. There will be . . . glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality” (Rom. 2:6–11; cf. Gal. 6:6–10).

In the second century, the technical Latin term for “merit” was introduced as a synonym for the Greek word for “reward.” Thus merit and reward are two sides of the same coin.

Protestants often misunderstand the Catholic teaching on merit, thinking that Catholics believe that one must do good works to come to God and be saved. This is exactly the opposite of what the Church teaches. The Council of Trent stressed: “[N]one of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification; for if it is by grace, it is not now by works; otherwise, as the Apostle [Paul] says, grace is no more grace” (Decree on Justification 8, citing Rom. 11:6).

The Catholic Church teaches only Christ is capable of meriting in the strict sense—mere man cannot* (Catechism* *of the Catholic Church *2007). The most merit humans can have is condign—when, under the impetus of God’s grace, they perform acts which please him and which he has promised to reward (Rom. 2:6–11, Gal. 6:6–10). Thus God’s grace and his promise form the foundation for all human merit (CCC 2008).

***Virtually all of this is agreed to by Protestants, who recognize that, under the impetus of God’s grace, Christians do perform acts which are pleasing to God and which God has promised to reward, meaning that they fit the definition of merit. When faced with this, Protestants are forced to admit the truth of the Catholic position—although, contrary to Paul’s command (2 Tim. 2:14), they may still dispute the terminology. ***

Thus the Lutheran *Book of Concord *admits: “We are not putting forward an empty quibble about the term ‘reward.’ . . . We grant that eternal life is a reward because it is something that is owed—not because of our merits [in the strict sense] but because of the promise [of God]. We have shown above that justification is strictly a gift of God; it is a thing promised. To this gift the promise of eternal life has been added” (p. 162).

 

[Redbandito]

But if I remember my opening post in this thread, there is no verse in scripture that says we are saved by faith alone while there is one that says we are NOT saved by faith alone.

It is amazing to watch the gyrations y’all go through to try to explain away the book of James.

Precisely Randy. Which brings me to my final point. SS, you attempted (and I stress the word, “Attempted”) to explain away James’ clear reference to the phrase “not by faith alone” as stating that our “work justify our faith.” Thus, the works don’t actually justify us. Now, I know how you arrived there based on your theological presumptions. Yet, your explanation doesn’t get even close to being true to the text. For James doesn’t say “our works justifies our faith,” but rather “WE are justified by works.” In other words, our works justify US, not merely our faith.

 

[Redbandito]

Paul tells us: “For [God] will reward every man according to his works: to those who by perseverance in working good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. There will be . . . glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality” (Rom. 2:6–11; cf. Gal. 6:6–10).

In the second century, the technical Latin term for “merit” was introduced as a synonym for the Greek word for “reward.” Thus merit and reward are two sides of the same coin.

Protestants often misunderstand the Catholic teaching on merit, thinking that Catholics believe that one must do good works to come to God and be saved. This is exactly the opposite of what the Church teaches. The Council of Trent stressed: “[N]one of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification; for if it is by grace, it is not now by works; otherwise, as the Apostle [Paul] says, grace is no more grace” (Decree on Justification 8, citing Rom. 11:6).

The Catholic Church teaches only Christ is capable of meriting in the strict sense—mere man cannot* (Catechism* *of the Catholic Church *2007). The most merit humans can have is condign—when, under the impetus of God’s grace, they perform acts which please him and which he has promised to reward (Rom. 2:6–11, Gal. 6:6–10). Thus God’s grace and his promise form the foundation for all human merit (CCC 2008).

***Virtually all of this is agreed to by Protestants, who recognize that, under the impetus of God’s grace, Christians do perform acts which are pleasing to God and which God has promised to reward, meaning that they fit the definition of merit. When faced with this, Protestants are forced to admit the truth of the Catholic position—although, contrary to Paul’s command (2 Tim. 2:14), they may still dispute the terminology. ***

Thus the Lutheran *Book of Concord *admits: “We are not putting forward an empty quibble about the term ‘reward.’ . . . We grant that eternal life is a reward because it is something that is owed—not because of our merits [in the strict sense] but because of the promise [of God]. We have shown above that justification is strictly a gift of God; it is a thing promised. To this gift the promise of eternal life has been added” (p. 162).

Praise God for the Lutherans! Great point Randy. Well done.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Who said they were? I never said every theology professor that wrote a book is a scholar, although one could make this argument in a general sense (but certainly not for the term of Biblical scholar). And as far as his expertise, covenant my dear friend. Covenant theology.

Covenant theology? This is an assertion without any evidence. What advance research has he done in this area? What scholarly works on Covenant theology has interacted with? What scholarly journal or book has he written in this area? I did a search and all I came up with was a few audio tapes and a book that seemed more like an introductory book on covenant which wouldn’t come close to qualifying him as a scholar in that field. Also I found this description of Dr. Hahn with the book, ” Hahn, a master apologist and Roman Catholic theologian …” A master apologist? Like I said Dr Hahn is more of an apologist than a scholar, unless you deliver some goods.

What? See, this is why I want to end this discussion. You are more interested in winning a debate than having an honest dialogue. I never said Fr. Brown is “not a voice for Christians.” That is a gross misrepresentation of my previous post, and you know it.

Here is what you said:
” Fr. Brown brought doubt to some of the historical accuracies of the Scriptures. He approached Biblical exegesis with a more modernist, skeptical hermeneutic. That is not exactly the guy I want speaking for me as a Christian, much less a Catholic.”.
Now here was my paraphrase:
“And if all of what you say above is true about Fr Brown not even being a voice for Christians, let alone Catholicism what does that say about the Popes who appointed him?”
Now how are my words a “gross misrepresentation”? I was paraphrasing and not directly quoting, but it is fairly accurate. Are you insinuating you don’t want him speaking for you as a Christian, but he is a voice for all other Christians? Even if I take your direct quote the point still remains. What does that say about the Popes appointing someone that you claim “brought doubt to some of the historical accuracies of the Scriptures”, and he is not even someone you would have speak for you as a Christian, much less a Catholic. You seem to be overacting.

That is the difference between an apologist and a Christian seeking truth. I said there is some dissent amongst Catholics about what Fr. Brown’s exegetical style. Nor did I say I don’t respect Fr. Brown. In fact, I said the exact opposite. He contributed a lot to the Church. But, true to form, you have taken me out of context.

Your words about respecting Fr Brown were destroyed by what you said after that. You don’t even want him speaking for you as a Christian, much less a Catholic. You spoke of the doubt he brought to the inerrancy of Scripture and his skeptical hermeneutic. If this is respect, I hate to see disrespect. You didn’t mention anything positive about him at all, yet you accuse me of taken you out of context. Pretty amazing if you ask me.

Okay. Fair enough. I will provide a link. But remember, it is you who have been misinterpreting ME. I never said Hahn argued that Romans 4:4 teaches we are justified by works, as I addressed above. Thus, if you can misinterpret me, it does not surprise me that you would misinterpret Chrysostom, or even moreso Paul.

You sound like you are trying to convince yourself of this, because you keep saying it over and over. I didn’t misinterpret you anymore than you were misinterpreting me. I was arguing for an interpretation of Romans 4:4 and you were arguing for Catholic theology of justification. We had already had that discussion when you pointed me to Akins article. So when we were discussing Chrysostom I was discussing his exegesis of Romans 4:4 while you were arguing for his entire theology of Justification. I don’t believe that is what Chrysostom was doing and as I told you before I will post on that shortly. So you were missing my point and I was missing your point. We are even there. The jury is still out on Chrysostom and you are definitely wrong on Paul